Machiavelli’s Public Conspiracies
James R. Martel, Dept. of Political Science, SFSU
Please do not cite without author’s permission
When it comes to his treatment of political conspiracies, Machiavelli often seems
to be indifferent to whether his advice serves princes or subjects, or both. In the
beginning of his chapter “Of Conspiracies” in the Discourses, he writes:
It seems to me proper now to treat of conspiracies, being a matter of so
much danger both to princes and subjects; for history teaches us that many
more princes have lost their lives and their states by conspiracies than by
open war. But few can venture to make open war upon their sovereign,
whilst every one may engage in conspiracies against him. On the other
hand, subjects cannot undertake more perilous and foolhardy enterprises
than conspiracies, which are in every respect more difficult and
dangerous; and thence it is that, although so often attempted, yet they so
rarely attain the desired object. And therefore, so that princes may learn to
guard against such dangers, and that subjects may less rashly engage in
them, and learn rather to live contentedly under such a government as Fate
may have assigned to them… I shall treat the subject at length, and
endeavor not to omit any point that may be useful to the one or the other.
If anything, in this passage, Machiavelli‘s understanding of conspiracies seems to favor
princes insofar as he suggests that conspiracies tend to work better for princes than for
subjects seeking to restore their liberty. Thus he offers that subjects might be better off
learning to “live contentedly under such a government as Fate may have assigned to
them.” And yet, as is so often the case with Machiavelli, even in the very passage in
which he delivers this verdict, he may be saying more than one thing at the same time.
For example, although he offers that the conspiracy of the subject against the prince is
“perilous and foolhardy” he nonetheless offers (and he follows through in the Discourses
itself) to show how conspiracies can nonetheless be “useful” to the subjects. In other
words, conspiracies by subjects may be difficult but not impossible (indeed “many more
princes have lost their lives and their states by conspiracies than by open war”). If we
take this view seriously, then it allows us to read the passage in a slightly different light.
1